Greg,

You and your group is expect ted to reply to jurisdiction. The Article, is thoroughly and fully relevant the task given to the group.

One can not escape to deal with it or ignore it due to personal views of some nationals .

The issue raised in this Article together with 22 points that did extract from e-mail exchange among the group must also be fully examined and responded.

In the absence of that ,even those in favour of " NO change" will be considred responsible for such inaction and failure.

You are expected to carefully reply to this important question.

I hope you would kindly not taking a position in this regard despite of your personal views

Regards

2017-01-22 2:33 GMT+01:00 Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>:

I want to clarify that David is a volunteer, but not the coordinator/rapporteur for the small group that is preparing litigation summaries (unless David wants to be...). I've just sent an email to the list describing the project and seeking more volunteers (including someone to be coordinator/facilitator for the group).

Also, the small group's task is limited to preparing summaries of ICANN's prior and current litigation matters. Since the article does not deal with litigation, it is not germane to the small group's work.

FYI, the article (by Farzaneh Badii) was originally published (in a less colorful form) here: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/01/13/icanns-jurisdiction-sanctions-and-domain-names/.

Greg

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:47 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear David,
As the rapporteur of small group in sub group WS2 dealing with ICANN Litigation, pls find attached an article appreas on the Internet on the matter.
We need to seriously address the issue.-
Kavouss